I dont believe the Club set the agenda for the expectations you had. The Club had clearly outlined the issues with the youth of the list getting at least 50 games into the playersetc. It cant be helped if you ignored the request for patience and resolved that the year would be brighter than what was being painted by the FD.

As I stated "Obviously people get different things out of any meeting or event." So if "I go to the AGM for the support of the club, get some insight into the workings of club and hopefully gain some vision into the season to come" what is the clubs real agender of an AGM? Sorry I missed it.

If I have ignored the "request for patience" then I know I'm not alone.

Tend to agree with what you have stated above daisycutter. McLardy may have asked for people not to ask the questions, however we all know that every member in the room had the right to ask them.

Yes, but I expect that distinction will go over certain posters heads

Its interesting that those who want the hard questions asked/discussed didn't appear to have attended

Lets all move on. We know mistakes were made, we know there have been huge restructuring changes (which most seem to approve of)

Only time now will tell whether we are back on track. Picking at scabs will achieve nothing but a distraction

Yes, great, a robust discussion on whether or not the CEO should have been sacked last year, while he sits at the side of the President at the AGM.

Yes Redleg, it would have been cringe worthy wouldn't it. But is it better to deny the members the information necessary to make decisions?

The question I raised above is central. I'm not asking "why did you ring Bailey rather than go and see him". That is process, or lack of it. Schwabs situation is central.

We often talk of demanding the best of our players and FD. Surely we have the right to demand the best of the people we elect to represent us. Perhaps Don could just have said "we made some bad errors last year and that was one of them, but we've got it right now, learned from the mistake and we are now in a very good place thanks to Cameron's input for which we are grateful".

Now that's a win win and not hard to come up with. It was beyond Don.

There was no prohibition on asking questions about the past, rather it was expressed by Russell Howcroft who took Q & A that the Board would prefer to look forward rather than back.

As it was, there were only a handful of questions in the Q & A. Howcroft interviewed Mitch Clark then asked Neil Craig some questions first about what interested him in coming to the club and after that, questions were taken from the floor. I think the very first of those questions came from a member and it was about the culture of the club and the very events of last year that some are alleging were banned from discussion. Don McLardy answered that question and did not, at any stage indicate he wouldn't accept it because reference was made to past events. I thought he responded to the question well.

Yes, but I expect that distinction will go over certain posters heads

Its interesting that those who want the hard questions asked/discussed didn't appear to have attended

Lets all move on. We know mistakes were made, we know there have been huge restructuring changes (which most seem to approve of)

Only time now will tell whether we are back on track. Picking at scabs will achieve nothing but a distraction

I didn't go because I knew the questions wouldn't be answered and to be honest I wouldn't have asked them because I wouldn't want to see the club put in a bad light. But that doesn't excuse the Board from asking people not to ask those questions.

No, we can't just ignore it because it's central to making a decision about the people who run our club. They did very badly last night and I hope they do better in future.

Thanks WJ.

There was no prohibition on asking questions about the past,

That seems to be at odd with Stanga who said

" Also they specifically requested no questions on last seasons goings on."

and

"They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it".

Even your description of wanting to look "forward" rather than "back" is a totally inappropriate direction from a Board given their questionable performance at times over the last 12 months.

Where did my post go?

They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it. I was slightly perplexed and disappointed. Whilst they might feel the matters are dealt with i think there are many members like myself who still have open wounds over what happened last year and would have liked some closure by having some sort of answers from the men involved directly, who technically should be answering to those who elect them.

We all have to get over the poorer events of last year so we can move forward.

Answering questions re witchhunt or not, about last year would only open the door to the Media re our negatives. /So I can understand we don't want too much of last years 'stuff', capsizing the refloating of the HMAS Demons...

If we took a retrospective look so soon, it could be disruptive to this season proper.

Lets give this management @ least the first half season to deliver us some excitement.

Thanks all for the summary of events (or from some perspective non events).

Thanks WJ for your news and I agree with that. In respect to the past 47 years, the current Board cannot be held answerable for that and its a trite question. McLardy rightly said for us to look forward. And we should especially do so given the changes at the top.

Happy with what you say and in particular the fact that we need to look forward but with one caveat that I've mentioned on a number of occasions - that we need to remember the mistakes of our past in order that we don't repeat them*. I hope that message is understood by those charged with leading our club for the very reason that the past 47 years are littered with stories of boards and committees that made the same mistakes and as a consequence, we first lost our status as the competition's pre-eminent club and then failed to fully recover to this very day.

* more or less based on a saying by George Santayana

That seems to be at odd with Stanga who said

" Also they specifically requested no questions on last seasons goings on."

and

"They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it".

Even your description of wanting to look "forward" rather than "back" is a totally inappropriate direction from a Board given their questionable performance at times over the last 12 months.

All I can say to that is that a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. My views on looking forward and the past are in my post above.

I personally would be horrified if the board of my club was predominantly interested in looking back instead of forward. I think the club went from being a power to one of the competition's weak links in the first place by resting on its laurels and looking back at the triumphs of the 50s-60s. Now, of all times, we need to look forward and do so aggressively (subject to the George Santayana principle).

...

And they were the only party you singled out for admonishment for the result and your take on what happened was clearly incorrect as you have acknowledged. I am glad that no one at the Club is pointing any fingers because the failures that contributed to the results involved not just the players,

Ok RR, as my last post was deleted, can you please indicate where;

a) I have laid 100% blame on the players, and

b] Where I have acknowledged that my take on what happened was clearly incorrect

I'm happy for you to quote me and not agree with what I believe, but don't ever make false claims. Poor form champ, poor form.

Yes Redleg, it would have been cringe worthy wouldn't it. But is it better to deny the members the information necessary to make decisions?

The question I raised above is central. I'm not asking "why did you ring Bailey rather than go and see him". That is process, or lack of it. Schwabs situation is central.

We often talk of demanding the best of our players and FD. Surely we have the right to demand the best of the people we elect to represent us. Perhaps Don could just have said "we made some bad errors last year and that was one of them, but we've got it right now, learned from the mistake and we are now in a very good place thanks to Cameron's input for which we are grateful".

Now that's a win win and not hard to come up with. It was beyond Don.

I agree that we have the right to demand the best of our Board.

He couldn't however have given the answer you gave, because he wasn't asked the question.

He also did not forbid any discussion on 2011, he just said he personally preferred to look to the future.

I can assure you no one was stopped from asking any question, no matter how stupid or irrelevant.

I was actually amazed at how few questions were in fact asked. Usually we get plenty of them, including the many stupid ones like " will we win the flag this year etc".

I actually would have loved someone to ask " do the Board think it appropriate to sack a Coach by phone?" I still think that was a disgrace. The Board should be ashamed of that one.

With the saturation media covering AFL I can see how it's very counter-productive to have a transparent post-mortem at the AGM - I guess Stephen Mayne doesn't barrack for the Demons?

I can also appreciate the concern that 186 has not been properly explained.

They did very badly last night and I hope they do better in future.

More so for the reasons in my post 125.

That seems to be at odd with Stanga who said

" Also they specifically requested no questions on last seasons goings on."

and

"They definitely clearly requested that no quesitons be asked about the behind the scenes events of the last 12 months as they felt we had movied on from it".

There is a difference between "requesting no questions on a topic" and "banning them". There was no ban.

All I can say to that is that a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. My views on looking forward and the past are in my post above.

I personally would be horrified if the board of my club was predominantly interested in looking back instead of forward. I think the club went from being a power to one of the competition's weak links in the first place by resting on its laurels and looking back at the triumphs of the 50s-60s. Now, of all times, we need to look forward and do so aggressively (subject to the George Santayana principle).

Come on WJ, you know full well, we don't improve unless we learn from the mistakes of the past. The past must be examined and understood if we are to benefit from it in the future.

Ok RR, as my last post was deleted, can you please indicate where;

a) I have laid 100% blame on the players, and

b] Where I have acknowledged that my take on what happened was clearly incorrect

I'm happy for you to quote me and not agree with what I believe, but don't ever make false claims. Poor form champ, poor form.

Billy, Its not a matter of laying 100% blame on the players and I did not hold you to that all. Its just that you only singled them out for the 186 debacle and asserted that they went to management with grievances and held supporters and members to ransom with their performance. And its not just me that had that impression either. Fan corrected you on that impression and you acknowledged that. So much for form!!

With the saturation media covering AFL I can see how it's very counter-productive to have a transparent post-mortem at the AGM - I guess Stephen Mayne doesn't barrack for the Demons?

I can also appreciate the concern that 186 has not been properly explained.

Good points Old about media but I am not sure it would have overshadowed the Stynes announcement.

Come on WJ, you know full well, we don't improve unless we learn from the mistakes of the past. The past must be examined and understood if we are to benefit from it in the future.

Redleg.

Please read my post again.

That's exactly what I said (google Geotge Santayana).

Good points Old about media but I am not sure it would have overshadowed the Stynes announcement.

Maybe not today but you'd have Caro, Denim and Lace and whoever is Mike's aspirant replacement all over it like a that horrible rash you got on the Christmas holidays in the ensuing weeks - and just as hard to get rid of.

Edited February 2, 201213 yr by old55

Redleg.

Please read my post again.

That's exactly what I said (google Geotge Santayana).

I didn't know Santana's name was George, I thought it was Carlos.

Redleg.

Please read my post again.

That's exactly what I said (google Geotge Santayana).

Very hard to learn from history if you don't know what it is. I want the Board to look forward as well but I want them to be accountable for their past and not hide from the difficult questions.

Redleg that question wasn't asked because the audience was asked not to ask it.

Anyway I've said my piece and look forward to the future.

Yes, great, a robust discussion on whether or not the CEO should have been sacked last year, while he sits at the side of the President at the AGM.

Exactly Redleg what would that have achieved - apart from embarrasing the Board and Cam. I think everyone is forgetting that we have put faith in the Board to get the Club back on track and that obviously includes dealing with whatever issues there were last year with Cam and FD. I personally want to believe that these issues have now been dealt with. If I know anything about Don is that he does not shirk the hard issues. Can we move on.

Who was asked not to ask questions about 2011. Our group certainly were not asked.

One question I would have liked to ask was what is happening with the medical department. (Thought of it after) I have subsequently learnt that the Club is in the middle of interviewing candidates.

You dont understand accountability. Its not a matter of just tossing the incumbents. How can you logically and vaidly assess performance if there is no clarity of what actually took place aside from what is leaked or published in the Press. Surely members deserve better than being treated like mushrooms.....

Of course it is not a matter of just tossing out the incumbents ..... they had already resigned.We voted them back into office !!.

It's not particularly logical to vote first and assess later.

My biggest question of the night is regarding an issue that no one has commented on which I find suprising, unless Ive misunderstood the explanation. THat is, Greg Healy's placement as CASUAL Football Director. Please correct me if im wrong but does this mean that the MFC, a club competing with sprting powerhouses for a premiership, has filled this absolutely critical postion with a Casual appointment. Why is this not bothering anyone.

Why is everyone over the moon about Healys appointment in a casual capacity. to me that is the biggest negative of the whole evening.

It has been brushed under the carpet. I am hoping i have misunderstood this and welcome any comments on this matter.